The right to choose

The church, for that matter the Roman Catholic church in Indonesia, is not known for stirring political controversy. Therefore it came as a major surprise when news surfaced last week that the Bishops Council of Indonesia had issued a letter to all Roman Catholic churches in the country, stating that one would not commit a sin if one did not vote in the upcoming general election.

The statement must be read in its entirety, lest one is lead to a wrong and possibly dangerous conclusion about the church's role in Indonesian politics. The council said it had made the statement in response to questions from members of the church. In view of the approaching election, such a question is therefore valid, and that the church was only performing its duty when it gave its moral stance on the subject of election.

But legally, there is no obligation for anyone to vote in the election. The 1985 electoral law states that voting is a right for every adult Indonesian of sound mind. The law does not stipulate any sanctions for people not exercising their right to vote. What the law does is to make it a criminal offense for anyone to prevent others from voting, or discourage others from exercising their civil right.

President Soeharto put the matter clearly when he spoke on Friday about the need to ensure a successful election: that everyone should vote and that, those who do not, do so at their own loss because the election is a once every-five-year opportunity for people to influence the course of national development.

The debate about the right to vote has surfaced every time a general election has neared. The 1997 election is no exception. It just happens that this time the debate was started by the leaders of the Roman Catholic church.

In countries where democracy has developed to an advanced stage, the right to vote implies that one can choose not to vote for whatever reason. In U.S. elections, a voter turnout of less than 50 percent of the total registered voters, is acceptable, and the results, like President Clinton's reelection in November, stand. In the U.S., registering as voters is an option, and only about half of all American eligible voters are registered.

Voter turnouts in Indonesia's last five elections have always exceeded 90 percent of registered and eligible voters. This is a remarkable achievement, not only compared to developed countries, but even by the standards of other developing countries.

In Indonesia, however, the percentage of people who did not vote in past elections has been, rightly or wrongly, used as an indication to gauge the level of discontent towards the political system of the New Order. Unfortunately, the government's obsession to go for the greatest turnout -- sometimes going to great lengths to ensure that everyone voted -- has given greater currency to the belief that those who did not vote were boycotting the election.

Imperfections in the electoral system and the way elections have been held have further given credence to the theory. Even the United Development Party and the Indonesian Democratic Party are complaining that the electoral laws were designed to ensure the maximum victory for Golkar.

The system's flaws have made more plausible the claims that elections are a mere constitutional formality, a process legitimizing Golkar's hold on power. One could certainly argue that a political system that has seen five general elections and ensured political stability and sustainable economic growth in the last 30 years is worth defending.

But this is exactly what a general election is all about, in Indonesia or elsewhere. An election is a rare chance for people to express their true feelings about a situation, including their feelings about a political system or a government in power and whether they want to endorse them. The only way to measure people's support for a system or a ruling political grouping is therefore to give the people full liberty in exercising their right to vote on May 29.